The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Scott Nelson]

Now you reveal that you have no evidence to support any of this and you're desperately scrabbling around trying to find a document which your memory has obviously confused with something else to show that Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome at some point. But there is absolutely no reason for you to have said, as a fact, that in March 1992 Barrett "was either developing, or already had for some time" Korsakoff Syndrome.

Now it's all changed. Could Barrett have been an alcoholic in 1992, you ask. Now it's maybe he had the syndrome, maybe he didn't. All very different from the confident factual assertions you were making to me in March when you were trying to gaslight me into believing something for which you had no evidence.

I didn't try to change anything. I know there is some mention somewhere of KS associated with Barrett. It could have developed at any time. If the diagnosis was incorrect, then Barrett was displaying the effects of mental impairment from other causes. Alcoholism would be a reasonable guess, but I remember KS being documented for some reason. Someone must remember.

And don't accuse me of gaslighting. You're the champion there. You've been here now, for what, less than 10 years and already 21,000+ posts? You've got your nose into everything under the sun. Lots of time on your hands. No time to hold down a full-time job, or what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And don't accuse me of gaslighting. You're the champion there. You've been here now, for what, less than 10 years and already 21,000+ posts? You've got your nose into everything under the sun. Lots of time on your hands. No time to hold down a full-time job, or what?

I will certainly never accuse you of gaslighting.... if you don't try to gaslight me. But you've literally just admitted that your former categoric and unqualified statement that Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome, and suffered from it in 1992, was based on nothing more than "some mention somewhere" that you think you remember of some kind of associationof KS with Barrett, possibly by someone who didn't know the facts, and who managed to gaslight you, which you felt the need to repeat to me, so that, had I not been brave enough to challenge you, as many others might not have been, I would never have discovered the hollow foundation on which your previously confident assertion rests.

So you’re reduced to personal insults about how long I’ve been here and how many posts I’ve made and you imply that I can’t hold down a job. Well, not that it’s any of your business, I’ve worked all of my life until around 8 years ago when I became a Carer for my terminally ill father. I ‘held down’ the job of caring for him quite competently until he died five years ago. I’m now a carer for my mother and (part-time) for an aunt whilst doing some part-time work from home. And as I work from home I get more time than most to post. I hope that this is a satisfactory explanation or would you like greater detail?

I’ve been accused on here of being a ‘Johnnie-Come’Lately’ and now you question me in this insulting way. Is it a case of some people thinking that there is an established ‘in crowd?’ People who have been members for years who get a little bit perved when they get questioned by some (to them) newcomer?

[Scott Nelson]

You believe that Anne Graham supplied Tony Devereux with an old family photograph album--so am I right in assuming that you also believe that Anne did this knowing full-well that Tony intended to use it to fake the Diary of Jack the Ripper? Thus, Anne was an accomplice or co-conspirator both before and after the fact?

Do you believe Mike was also 'in on it,' or do you think he was their mutual dupe?

One strange aspect is your theory is the hurdle I still can't climb over. When the whole thing went pear-shaped in the summer of 1994 as Barrett started confessing that he was the author, wouldn't it have been rather strange for Anne--if she did what you said she did--to come forward and claim previous ownership of the photo album?

That would be sailing rather close to the wind, wouldn't it? Wouldn't she have been far better off just to keep her mouth shut and distance herself from the album?

That's the point I keep coming back to. If Anne wasn't intimately involved, I can see no reason why she made herself the center of attention and led everyone on a merry dance away from Barrett's secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit.

Personally, I am 100% satisfied that Barrett demonstrated inside knowledge of the diary's creation. If he wasn't the co-author of it, then he was one hell of an amateur detective and a crazy one at that.

Hi RJ,

My theory actually is that Billy Graham knew Tony Devereux and supplied the photo album to 'the group'. After Devereux's death, Billy gave the completed photo album with diary writing to Anne, who turned it over to Mike. So, Anne would have only known after the fact, and I think that was the extent of Anne's involvement initially.

Mike may or may not have known about what was planned. If he did know, he was likely on the periphery of the hoax. I'm not sure why Anne would later come out with her "in the family for years" story. As you suggest, it doesn't fit that Anne would implicate herself or her father.

If he was in the loop, Mike could have been informed on some parts of the diary creation, or tasked with running small errands for materials, but that may have been it. Personally, I don't think he had any involvement in the physical creation of the diary or even knew about it beforehand. But what knowledge he later had about it resulted from talking to Devereux before he died. I don't believe that Devereux refused to tell Mike anything about the diary after it was handed over to him, as has been claimed. But one thing Mike wasn't told was who the story was about. Fortunately for him, the electricians provided an answer.

I think Mike's mindset was haywire from well before getting the diary, so I've put the different affidavit/confessional events aside in my theory. That may be a mistake, I'm not really sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will certainly never accuse you of gaslighting.... if you don't try to gaslight me. But you've literally just admitted that your former categoric and unqualified statement that Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome, and suffered from it in 1992, was based on nothing more than "some mention somewhere" that you think you remember of some kind of associationof KS with Barrett, possibly by someone who didn't know the facts, and who managed to gaslight you, which you felt the need to repeat to me, so that, had I not been brave enough to challenge you, as many others might not have been, I would never have discovered the hollow foundation on which your previously confident assertion rests.

So you’re reduced to personal insults about how long I’ve been here and how many posts I’ve made and you imply that I can’t hold down a job. Well, not that it’s any of your business, I’ve worked all of my life until around 8 years ago when I became a Carer for my terminally ill father. I ‘held down’ the job of caring for him quite competently until he died five years ago. I’m now a carer for my mother and (part-time) for an aunt whilst doing some part-time work from home. And as I work from home I get more time than most to post. I hope that this is a satisfactory explanation or would you like greater detail?

I’ve been accused on here of being a ‘Johnnie-Come’Lately’ and now you question me in this insulting way. Is it a case of some people thinking that there is an established ‘in crowd?’ People who have been members for years who get a little bit perved when they get questioned by some (to them) newcomer?

Just for clarity, that should read “a little bit peeved..”

[Scott Nelson]

I’ve been accused on here of being a ‘Johnnie-Come’Lately’ and now you question me in this insulting way. Is it a case of some people thinking that there is an established ‘in crowd?’ People who have been members for years who get a little bit perved when they get questioned by some (to them) newcomer?

It's because your questions have mostly been addressed long before by others in response to other posters having the same questions. It's tiresome having to reinvent the wheel all the time unless one is a whizz with the search engine (I'm not).

BTW, 'perved' is fine. I get that way all the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's because your questions have mostly been addressed long before by others in response to other posters having the same questions. It's tiresome having to reinvent the wheel all the time unless one is a whizz with the search engine (I'm not).

BTW, 'perved' is fine. I get that way all the time.

I strongly disagree that I've been asking questions which have "mostly been addressed long before by others." It seems to me you've fallen for some anti-Herlock propaganda put about by people who either can't or don't want to answer my questions, many of which remain unaddressed and unanswered to this day. I'm not sure if you've read everything that’s been posted, Scott, but there have been multiple examples of me successfully challenging things that have been stated on here about the diary as long established facts. Did you not notice, for example, that two supposed recordings of things Michael Barrett is supposed to have said, which are supposed to undermine his account, cannot be heard on the tapes? It's only because I've been asking questions that the issue has even been spotted. I'm still waiting for answers. Ike's gone totally silent on the issue. Caz has yet to respond to my questions about it.

Also, people's views and opinions change. Things that have been said many years ago may not hold true today. Have you not noticed that when Roger quotes things Caz said on the past that she tells him, in the strongest terms, that she doesn't necessarily believe the same thing today?

Above all, we should welcome and embrace the questions of new people to a debate because they may see things from a new perspective and challenge long held assumptions. In your own case, for example you appear to have been labouring under the false belief for many years that Michael Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome and was suffering from it in 1992 which would have prevented him from forging the diary's text. No-one had, apparently, ever challenged you on this before. It's only when I did so that you started looking around old issues of Ripperana in an attempt to locate a half-remembered document which probably doesn't exist. Suddenly you're not so sure. I’ve done this myself on topics where I’ve assumed that I’m remembering correctly. That's the benefit a new person can sometimes bring.

[Scott Nelson]

I strongly disagree that I've been asking questions which have "mostly been addressed long before by others." It seems to me you've fallen for some anti-Herlock propaganda put about by people who either can't or don't want to answer my questions, many of which remain unaddressed and unanswered to this day. I haven't fallen for 'anti-Herlock' propaganda from other posters. It's your demanding demeanor that puts many people off and you DO repeat questions have been previously answered. I'm not sure if you've read everything that’s been posted, Scott, but there have been multiple examples of me successfully challenging things that have been stated on here about the diary as long established facts. There really aren't numerous examples of this. You're being vainglorious. Did you not notice, for example, that two supposed recordings of things Michael Barrett is supposed to have said, which are supposed to undermine his account, cannot be heard on the tapes? It's only because I've been asking questions that the issue has even been spotted. I'm still waiting for answers. Ike's gone totally silent on the issue. Caz has yet to respond to my questions about it. I doubt they would know for sure, but even if they did, their answers wouldn't satisfy you.

Also, people's views and opinions change. Things that have been said many years ago may not hold true today. Have you not noticed that when Roger quotes things Caz said on the past that she tells him, in the strongest terms, that she doesn't necessarily believe the same thing today? Yes, we should all be capable of changing our minds as the case evolves. But the Maybrick Diary has been in suspended animation now for years and I doubt that it will ever be solved to everyone's mutual satisfaction.

Above all, we should welcome and embrace the questions of new people to a debate because they may see things from a new perspective and challenge long held assumptions. In your own case, for example you appear to have been labouring under the false belief for many years that Michael Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome and was suffering from it in 1992 which would have prevented him from forging the diary's text. It wasn't a false belief. I remember a medical form with the diagnosis written on it. No-one had, apparently, ever challenged you on this before. It's only when I did so that you started looking around old issues of Ripperana in an attempt to locate a half-remembered document which probably doesn't exist. (it did) Suddenly you're not so sure. (I am) I’ve done this myself on topics where I’ve assumed that I’m remembering correctly. That's the benefit a new person can sometimes bring. Yes, assuming the new person isn't on a holy crusade to upend everything in sight without first contemplative consideration

Congratulations, you've only gaslit me several times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Congratulations, you've only gaslit me several times.

"I haven't fallen for 'anti-Herlock' propaganda from other posters. It's your demanding demeanor that puts many people off and you DO repeat questions have been previously answered"

You feel you can speak for other people now, Scott? Just asking questions equates to a "demanding demeanour" does it? Are you serious? And saying something doesn't make it true. I do not accept that I've been asking questions that have previously been answered. Certainly none have been identified. To the extent anyone has ever said this on the odd occasion, I'm pretty sure it was being used as an excuse to avoid answering my question.

"There really aren't numerous examples of this. You're being vainglorious."

Yes, there are numerous examples of me challenging things that have been stated as long established facts. I already gave you two examples from the recordings, the "fifty fifty" point and the claim that Mike once revealed a long term plan to pin the manuscript on his wife. Another one is Ike's belief that "plenty of people" can see "FM" on the wall in the Kelly photograph. Well we had a poll about it and that most certainly did not produce plenty of people who could see it, as Ike was undoubtedly hoping. One of the first things I challenged Ike on was his claim that the diarist had "predicted" the appearance of "FM" on the wall. He retracted this after I challenged the absurdity of it. I pointed out to Ike that far from the publication of the Kelly photograph in 1972 being some sort of point in favour of the diary's authenticity, it just shows that the forger could easily have used that photograph as material for the forgery at any time after this date. I've challenged the claim that Anne wanted to destroy the diary in a fire by pointing out that she literally arrange to protect the diary from a fire, something which hasn't yet been satisfactorily addressed. I've challenged Caz's claim that the diary transcript was typed by the Barretts before Mike left for London on 13th April 1992 (and contrasted that claim with her previous statement that it was created after that date), something which remains unanswered. I challenged the claim that Barrett's affidavit was created at the request of Melvin Harris who was supposed to have been "seeking" it and that he did nothing with it after supposedly receiving it on 6th January 1995. Statements Ike made about this turned out not to be true after I challenged him. I challenged the claim that Harris thought that Mike's affidavit was "rubbish", something for which no evidential support has been provided. I challenged the claim that the auction house have said that "everything" about the auction process described in Mike's affidavit is wrong, something for which no evidential support has been provided. I challenged the claim that Mike's motive for doing the affidavit was because Anne had divorced him the previous month. In fact, it turned out, upon my questioning, that Anne and Mike were still married at the time of the affidavit, the divorce not having yet been finalized. I challenged the claim that Mike was inconsistent about Anne's role in writing the manuscript, and only did so after the decree nisi in December 1994, providing multiple quotes of him saying in October and 1994 that Anne had written the manuscript. I asked Ike how we know that the actual Maybrick diary isn't contained in a photograph album manufactured in 1891. I'm still waiting for the answer. I've successfully challenged some nonsensical claims about why Barrett wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages. I've challenged the claim that Mike didn't need to pay for the diary in May 1992, so that Anne didn't need to write a cheque, which claim appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of Martin Earl's terms and conditions. There's been no response to this challenge so I have to accept it's been successful. I've challenged the claim that a "Battlecrease witness" ever referred to the diary as an "old book" (or "the old book") as claimed and still, many weeks later, not a single Battlecrease witness has been identified as using those words. Most recently I've challenged the claim that it was an apprentice electrician who went to Liverpool University with two electricians and the diary not Rigby, and I await a response to this challenge. Perhaps most importantly I've challenged the claim that the Barretts weren't capable of creating the diary, something which has reduced those who say he couldn't have done it to meek silence. These are just some the things that occur right off the top of my head, Scott, I'm sure there's more, and I've only been posting regularly on the subject for a few months. I'm not being "vainglorious" and I wouldn't have needed to say any of this stuff if I wasn't having to defend myself from your insulting remarks.

"I doubt they would know for sure, but even if they did, their answers wouldn't satisfy you. "

In saying that you "doubt they would know for sure", you reveal that don't even seem to have understood what's happening. Caz has implied that she's heard the things on the tapes that don't appear to be there. She hasn't yet confirmed whether she has or hasn't. It's the same for Ike. I've asked him if he heard the critical sentence on one of the tapes. He hasn't responded for some reason. So, yes, they will know for sure, Scott, whether they have heard something on the tapes or not. Are you actually reading all the posts?

And still we get claims that all questions have been answered.

"Yes, we should all be capable of changing our minds as the case evolves. But the Maybrick Diary has been in suspended animation now for years and I doubt that it will ever be solved to everyone's mutual satisfaction."

I don't care about solving the case, Scott. The only positive point I've wanted to make is that the diary is a definite forgery, created after 1945, due to the inclusion of the modern expression, "one off instance". That should be the end of the discussion. It's other people who obsess over every single detail of its creation, something which is impossible while the two people who could assist with getting to the bottom of matters remain silent. And if people stubbornly don't want to change their minds in the face of incontrovertible evidence that's up to them.

"It wasn't a false belief. I remember a medical form with the diagnosis written on it."

You clearly don't remember such a thing, Scott, for the reason Roger has already explained to you. You just think you do. Your memory is playing tricks on you. If such a diagnosis existed, don't you think Caz would know about it? It was the first question I asked her and she wasn't aware of it. Ike, who appears to be in regular contact with Keith Skinner, isn't aware of it either. You may remember a form, just not one with a KS diagnosis. But good luck in your never-ending search.

[John Wheat]

I don't know what anyone else thinks but I find Herlock one of the best and most sensible posters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you John.

[John Wheat]

I don't know what anyone else thinks but I find Herlock one of the best and most sensible posters.

No worries Herlock.